Lee Fang | The Nation
Jeff Bezos's Other Endeavor: Charter Schools, Neoliberal Education Reforms
Jeff Bezos. (Reuters/Shannon Stapleton)
As news broke yesterday that Amazon.com founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos has dipped into his personal fortune to buy The Washington Post and several Post-related media properties, there has been buzz about Bezos’s potential political agenda.
His record seems to suggest that Bezos is socially liberal, but economically conservative. He has contributed to both Republicans and Democrats, from John Conyers (D-MI) to Slade Gorton (R-WA); donated to the libertarian Reason Foundation; provided $2.5 million to pass gay marriage in Washington State; as well as $100,000 to defeat a modest effort to create an upper income tax in Washington State.
Others have scrutinized Bezos’s record at Amazon to predict his management of the Post. At The New Yorker, David Remnick says that under Bezos Amazon has “demonstrated itself to be ‘a First Amendment absolutist’ when it comes to the sale of controversial books (including Mein Kampf’) and an unwillingness to censor reader comments.” Others are less optimistic, particularly when it comes to Amazon’s lobbying and labor record.
The most troubling part of Amazon’s record, as it might relate to Bezos’ ownership of the Post, is Amazon’s December 2010 decision to shut down WikiLeaks’s server access after the group published a trove of State Department cables. Robert McChesney, citing Amazon’s move to pull the plug on WikiLeaks, released a statement today condemning the sale.
There’s one area where Bezos has been hyper-active, but it is largely unknown to the general public: education reform. A look at the Bezos Family Foundation, which was founded by Jackie and Mike Bezos but is financed primarily by Jeff Bezos, reveals a fairly aggressive effort in recent years to press forward with a neoliberal education agenda:
• The Bezos Foundation has donated to Education Reform Now, a nonprofit organization that funds attack advertisements against teachers’ unions and other advocacy efforts to promote test-based evaluations of teachers. Education Reform Now also sponsors Democrats for Education Reform.
• The Bezos Foundation provided $500,000 to NBC Universal to sponsor the Education Nation, a media series devoted to debating high-stakes testing, charter schools and other education reforms.
• The Bezos Foundation provided over $100,000 worth of Amazon stock to the League of Education Voters Foundation to help pass the education reform in Washington State. Last year, the group helped pass I-1240, a ballot measure that created a charter school system in Washington State. In many states, charter schools open the door for privatization by inviting for-profit charter management companies to take over public schools that are ostensibly run by nonprofits.
Other education philanthropy supported by the Bezos Foundation include KIPP, Teach for America and many individual charter schools, including privately funded math and science programs across the country.
But will Bezos’ interest in changing education policy affect his control of the Post? Only time will tell.
For now, the change in ownership will probably only benefit the Post’s education coverage, given the newspaper’s long relationship with Kaplan, which helped prop up the paper’s finances for years while the Post either largely ignored the issue of for-profit colleges or sent its executives to Capitol Hill to lobby against better oversight of the industry.
Part of the ugly history of the Post is it’s reliance on a predatory for-profit college called Kaplan University. Though Washington Post blogger Lydia DePillis seemed to whitewash this relationship yesterday by referring to Kaplan as only a “lucrative test prep business,” in reality, Kaplan University was one of worst for-profit colleges in the country.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
David Halperin at Republic Report has a rundown today of Kaplan University’s record, from intimidating prospective students to deceiving them to take on tens of thousands in debt with little hope of obtaining their promised career. As Halperin also notes, the Post’s old owners helped pressure lawmakers on Capitol Hill to continue providing billions in taxpayer money to the for-profit college industry. Notably, the sale of the Post to Bezos did not include Kaplan.
John Nichols writes about Bezos is not the big media story this week.
Interns at a Civil Rights Org Say They Were Fired for Disrespecting Walmart
Walmart co-manager, Mary Brinkley in her store in Richmond, Va. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
For three interns at the Organization for Chinese Americans, the largest Asian-American civil rights group in the country, a summer to learn about politics and advocacy ended abruptly with their dismissal two weeks ago.
The interns say they had been critical of some of the organization’s partners, including Walmart, over the course of the summer. And when a video was posted on one of their personal social media accounts depicting the interns making a rude gesture at a Walmart logo, they were told to pack up their bags and leave the organization.
The incident may shine light on the ways in which established civil rights organizations have fallen under influence of business interests. Large corporations—including McDonald’s, Sodexo, Wells Fargo and Walmart—forged close ties to leading civil rights groups with hefty donations. In the case of OCA, which was founded in 1971, some critics fear that these relationships have compromised the organization’s direction.
Lisa Lei, a student at the University of California, Irvine and one of the former OCA interns fired for disrespecting Walmart, told The Nation that she had raised concerns about Walmart’s efforts to build a new store in downtown Los Angeles, near Chinatown, at a meeting with coworkers. She says she was shut down by her supervisor and told not to criticize the organization’s sponsors.
Later, at the OCA convention in July, which was underwritten in part by Walmart and attended by Walmart’s outreach staff, Lei and two other interns posted a short Instagram video of themselves making a rude gesture about Walmart. The video, which was cross-posted onto one of the intern’s personal Facebook accounts, was discovered, and according to the interns, OCA staff swiftly summoned the students involved. The video was deleted off both of their personal social media accounts. The next morning, says Lei, “We were not given any time to ask why and were told it was because of the video. In less than ten minutes, I was escorted out of the hotel. Within thirty minutes, all three of us were watched and escorted out of the hotel.”
The interns say they were surprised at how harsh they were treated over the video, which was not intended for public dissemination, and that they are dissappointed that OCA has become so close to a company like Walmart.
“I’m not sure if there’s a whole lot I could share with you because this is a personnel issue,” says Tom Hayashi, OCA’s executive director. “The bottom line here is is that these interns were not dismissed because of their particular politics or any of their statements they may have made during the program.”
Hayashi told The Nation that his organization has not taken a position on the Chinatown Walmart issue, and for that matter, takes no position on Walmart’s labor record. But he denies that his neutrality has been influenced by Walmart money. Tax records from the Walmart Foundation show OCA has taken at least $164,400 from the company in recent years.
Walmart has come under criticism not only for alleged gender discrimination, low wages and intimidating labor activists but also for forcing its way into urban communities and displacing local businesses. In Los Angeles’ Chinatown, many Asian-American community groups fear the company will wreak havoc with its new store, which is set to open in the next month.
King Cheung, a Los Angeles activist with Chinatown Community for Equitable Development, told The Nation that the new Walmart will be “competing against mom-and-pop groceries, the small stores, and we’re worried about that.” Cheung says many Chinatown residents only speak Chinese, Vietnamese or Cambodian, and that they will have trouble finding new work if local businesses close as a result of Walmart’s new store.
Cheung also expressed dismay that several “established” Asian-American groups with financial ties to Walmart have sat on the sidelines with regards to their dispute with the company.
Hayashi says he opposes the “confrontation approach” taken by grassroots activists. He says that his group has a different set of goals. For instance, helping companies like McDonald’s to hire more Asian-Americans at both executive and low-level positions. Asked if he has pressed Walmart or McDonald’s to change its treatment of low-wage workers—a demand made by many civil rights organizations—Hayashi said no. “If I pick up the phone and call Walmart or any of our member companies, they will pick up the call and start a dialogue,” says Hayashi, who reiterated his focus on jobs and close communication between the Asian-American community and OCA’s business partners.
Indeed, OCA has championed progressive causes, like immigration reform, but the record shows that the organization appears to also peddle narrow corporate campaigns that reflect the political interests of their sponsor companies.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
In 2010, as the Obama administration developed so-called “net neutrality” (also known as “open Internet”) rules to prevent Internet service providers from discriminating based on content, OCA sent a letter to the FCC in opposition to the rule, claiming that “regulating the flexibility of business practices (i.e. treatment of data traffic)” would harm Asian-American entrepreneurs. The largest industry opponents of the regulation, including Comcast, AT&T and Verizon, are sponsors of OCA.
Last year, OCA helped another corporate donor, Southwest Airlines, by filing a request with the Department of Transportation to support Southwest’s bid to open a new route between Houston Hobby Airport and Reagan National.
In addition, tobacco-related litigation reveal a trove of documents showing that companies like Philip Morris used its sponsorship of OCA to forge ties with the community. A file on OCA from Philip Morris notes that its sponsorship of the group helped “introduce and promote PM programs…in the APA community” and help the company “develop, maintain, and strengthen relationships with APA community leaders.”
The sponsorship documents seem to suggest Philip Morrips hoped to use its donations to purchase political support. A Philip Morris strategy document lists OCA as a partner in its plan to confront the Justice Department’s lawsuits against the industry. Another memo lists OCA among “allies” to be tapped in an effort to defeat a Washington State measure to increase tobacco taxes.
A former Walmart executive in charge of the Walmart Foundation’s donation strategy once described the company’s philanthropy and reputational management efforts as “a lever” to make “it easier for us to site stores” and to make “it easier for us to stay out of the public limelight when we don’t want to be there.”
Asked about these activities, and if corporate donors had influenced the net-neutrality letter or Southwest letter, Hayashi said, “I have no comment.”
Walmart takes action against strikers.
Lawmakers Protecting NSA Surveillance Are Awash In Defense Contractor Cash
Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who voted against the Amash amendment. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Though it failed by a twelve-vote margin, Congressman Justin Amash’s (R-MI) amendment last week to curtail the NSA’s dragnet surveillance efforts reveals new fault lines in the debate over privacy. The roll call for the vote shows that 111 Democrats and ninety four Republicans supported the measure, which was co-sponsored by Amash’s Democratic colleague, John Conyers.
The amendment failed as the White House and NSA director General Keith Alexander personally lobbied lawmakers to oppose the measure. At first glance, a look at the ‘no’ votes seems to suggest an odd coalition of establishment Republicans and Democrats rallying to support the administration’s position. Congressman Darrell Issa, a Republican who casts himself as a leader on privacy issues and as a tough opponent of most of President Obama’s domestic policies, voted against the Amash bill. So did minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who, as The Huffington Post reported, previously criticized the section of the Patriot Act enabling large-scale data-mining as a “massive invasion of privacy.”
Why would an anti-Obama Republican and a supposedly pro-privacy Democrat join forces to uphold the NSA’s surveillance policies?
MapLight, the Berkeley-based campaign finance website, has aggregated the numbers and found that lawmakers “voting to continue the NSA’s dragnet surveillance programs received on average 122 percent more money ($41,635) from defense contractors and other defense industry interests than did representatives who voted to end the programs (18,765).” Amash has received a mere $1,400 from industry PACs and individuals.
Profit-driven defense contractors, like Booz Allen Hamilton and Boeing, manage the lion’s share of the government’s surveillance efforts. While it’s unknown at this point if any of the firms involved in the NSA’s domestic spying efforts attempted to influence the vote, the evidence suggests that recipients of defense contractor cash are more likely to vote to support NSA policies.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
This is what makes the NSA debate very different from recent high-profile battles over privacy, like the Stop Online Piracy Act. In that situation, you had big technology firms helping to fund the advocacy against SOPA, which critics charged would lead to online censorship. The technology companies were worried that SOPA would cost them money, so they lobbied against it, and helped organize the public to defeat the legislation. In the debate over the government’s intelligence-gathering programs, there are huge firms that profit from the preservation of NSA policies. But it’s not clear if there is any major industry opposition to mass spying. So in our money-driven political system, the chances for reform remain limited.
The Amash amendment may have failed, but George Zornick writes about why it was still a historic vote.
Not Just Goldman Sachs: Koch Industries Hoards Commodities as a Trading Strategy
David Koch. (AP Photo)
Over the weekend, The New York Times published its investigation of how Goldman Sachs has made a tidy profit by buying up vast amounts of aluminum and slowing the delivery through the ownership of vast warehouses. Many investment banks purchase physical assets, like pipelines or storage facilities, to gain better market intelligence for speculative trading. The Goldman Sachs strategy, detailed first by Bloomberg News and by Reuters in 2011, has boosted the cost of aluminum, hitting both manufacturers and consumers with higher prices.
Worth noting: Koch Industries, a company often inaccurately described as simply an oil or manufacturing concern, is highly active in the commodity speculation business akin to the big hedge funds and banks like Goldman Sachs.
As Fortune magazine reported, when oil prices dropped from a record high in July of 2008 to record lows in December of that year, Koch bought up the cheap oil to take it off of the market. Koch leased a number of giant oil tankers, including the 2-million-barrel-capacity Dubai Titan, to store the oil offshore. The decrease in supply increased the price for consumers that year, while Koch took advantage of selling the oil off later at higher prices.
Koch Industries’ executive David Chang later boasted, “The drop in crude oil prices from more than US$145 per barrel in July 2008 to less than US$35 per barrel in December 2008 has presented opportunities for companies such as ours. In the physical business, purchases of crude oil from producers and storing offshore in tankers allow us to benefit from the contango market where crude prices are higher for future delivery than for prompt delivery.”
The company took advantage when the prices were low, but they also gained when the prices were high. A leaked document I obtained shows Koch among the largest traders (including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) speculating on the price of oil in the summer of 2008.
A presentation I also obtained, given to an industry association for oil speculators, describes Koch as the “world’s top five crude oil traders and actively trades about fifty types of crude oil around the world.” The presentation notes Koch “has trading operations in London, Geneva, Singapore, Houston, New York, Wichita, Rotterdam, and Mumbai.” Indeed, Koch Metals Trading Limited (a Koch Industries subsidiary) also trades on the London-based exchange detailed in the Times story from Saturday.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
Koch’s role in commodity speculation has a long history, from introducing the first oil derivative in 1986 to lobbying lawmakers to remove limits on excessive oil speculation throughout the last two decades. I wrote a report on this subject, which you can find here.
Lee Fang writes about why we should all worry about the potential Koch takeover of the Chicago Tribune.
Lobbyists Rally to Ensure Brokers Can Scam Your 401(k)
Capitol Hill. (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
On Wednesday, more than seventy-five businessmen and women arrived to Capitol Hill to make their case to regulators and other officials. There was little coverage of the event, other than a one-sentence Politico newsletter item claiming that this lobbyist-led trip was an example of a trade group “[hitting] the hill for small investors.”
But rather than going to bat for mom-and-pop retirees or other small investors, the day-long event on the hill was actually the latest salvo in a three-year campaign by brokerage firms to block regulations that would ensure that advisers to your 401(k) work in your best financial interest, or in other words, as your fiduciary. The Financial Services Institue, a trade association for broker-dealers, organized the trip, which included representatives from Pershing, FSC Securities, TransAmerica and other industy leaders.
While many Americans rely on 401(k) plans for their retirement, few are aware that their financial advisers are often working for commissions, and have no legal obligation to have their clients’ best interests in mind. The vast majority of 401(k) advisers, around 85 percent, are not actually fiduciaries. Critics say brokers often steer small investors into funds that may not be suitable, or are burdened by an array of high fees.
Since 2010, the Labor Department has proposed rules that would broaden the definition of fiduciary to “anyone who provides investment advice for a direct or indirect fee to retirement plans or holders of an individual retirement account,” according to PBS’s Frontline. The Frontline story shows how many Americans with 401(k) plans are reaching retirement with far less money than they anticipated because they have been prodded by their advisers into funds riddled with fees and other penalties that have eaten away at their nest egg. In many cass, as a report by The Nation Institute’s John Wasjik documented, retirees are encouraged to place their savings into risky funds sold to them as “similar to a CD” in terms of safety. Many retirees who have spent much of their careers saving through their 401(k)s are now taking up jobs well into their 60s and 70s just to get by.
The broker-dealer industry was swift with its attacks on the fiduciary rule.
Financial giants like Fidelity and Bank of New York Mellon Corporation were joined by corporate-funded fronts like the Competitive Enterprise Institute in lobbying the Labor Department. A lobby organization for brokers involved with the campaign says that it helped generate 5,000 letters to the White House, conducted 260 meetings with congressional representatives from both parties and “coordinated” letters from thirty House Democrats and fifty-five House Republicans urging then–Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to drop the rule. One of the leaders of the Democratic mobilization against the rule, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was later feted with a breakfast fundraiser by the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers.
In September of 2011, the rule was retracted to be reworked. Fortunately for 401(k)-holders, the Labor Department says that it will re-propose the rule earlier this year. And as expected, the lobbying against the rule has heated up.
Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R-MO) sponsored a bill that would add new layers of red tape to the rule, potentially pushing it back for many years. The bill was opposed by the AARP, the Consumer Federation of America, and several other groups who said it will “leave American investors with significantly less protection.” Nevertheless, Wagner’s legislation passed the House Financial Services Committee last month with bipartisan support.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
Although second-quarter lobbying disclosures are still trickling out, it’s clear big brokerage firms are helping to battle the re-proposed rules. Charles Schwab and Co. spent at least $50,000 alone helping to pass Wagner’s legislation. When the rule was debated in 2011, Columbia Financial Advisors, Fidelity, the Financial Services Roundtable, John Hancock Financial, AXA Financial, Ameriprise, Allianz of America, MetLife, Charles Schwab, LPL Financial, Hartford Financial, TD Ameritrade, and other financial firms spent several millions lobbying the federal government on the issue, according to lobby disclosures filed with the Senate.
John Wasik, a in a recent piece explaining how Wagner’s bill would tie down the Labor Department rules, says the effort “channels the spirit of Bernie Madoff” by subverting real investor protection.
Its still unclear if the fiduciary rule will go the way of so many other financial regulation reforms that have been watered down to oblivion, tied up in litigation, or simply pushed to the side because of industry pressure.
Lee Fang unearths the lengths lobbyists will go support North Carolina’s right-wing legislative activism.
US Retailers Launch Lobby Blitz to Sell Weak Bangladesh Safety Plan
The gruesome garment factory disasters in Bangladesh, including a fire that claimed the lives of more than 112 in Tazreen and a building collapse that killed over 1,100 in Dhaka while maiming countless more, has brought international pressure on Western retailers and their partners in Bangladesh’s $20 billion garment industry. While more than seventy European and North American companies have signed onto a strong agreement with local Bangladesh and international labor NGOs for sweeping new safety standards (known as the Accord on Fire and Building Safety), many large US-based retailers have refused to play ball, preferring instead to rollout their own, competing agreement.
Yesterday morning, the competing agreement—sponsored by Walmart, Target, Kohls’s Corp, L.L. Bean, Nordstrom, J.C. Penney, Gap, Sears and other companies—was unveiled at the Bipartisan Policy Center by former Senators Olympia Snowe and George Mitchell. A joint statement from the AFL-CIO and Change to Win swiftly condemned the rival agreement as “yet another ‘voluntary’ scheme with no meaningful enforcement mechanisms” and a “product of a closed process and has been signed only by the same corporations that produced it.” The union says labor was not involved in the Walmart- and Gap-led agreement.
The rival plan, called the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety, according to a blueprint released on Wednesday, provides retailers with less responsibility for fixing factory safety violations. Unlikely the European-based Accord, which stipulates that retailers provide direct funds for safety improvements, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s plan “would work closely with the factory owners, the government of Bangladesh and various governments and aid agencies to figure out ways to finance safety improvements,” according to The New York Times. The Walmart- and Gap-led plan would pay for upgrades largely through a voluntary low-interest loan program, and retailers have the option of dropping out of the agreement at any time.
Labor activists have also noted that the Bipartisan Policy Center plan differs radically from the European Accord on safety inspections. The Accord requires independent safety inspectors hired with the involvement of workers, along with binding commitments that urgent repairs are done in the next 9 months, while the Bipartisan Policy Center’s plan calls for inspectors to be chosen from a board of directors developed by the retailers.
Notably, both Senators Snowe and Mitchell kicked off the press conference yesterday morning by stressing that they were brought into the effort as “independent facilitators.” Snowe said in her opening remarks that she and Mitchell acted as “an independent voice in facilitating this Alliance.” Both senators will continue to play an oversight role to verify the “effectiveness” of the rival agreement over the first two years. After the release of the US retailer–led plan, most media outlets protrayed the two senators’ involvement as “independent.”
As TheNation.com reported on Tuesday, the Bipartisan Policy Center, of which Snowe and Mitchell are officials, has received financial donations from Walmart and from lobbying firms representing major retailers involved with the rival plan.
Asked by Nation intern Samathan Lachman about the conflict of interest at the press conference yesterday, Bipartisan Policy Center president Jason Grumet responded, “The BPC is principally funded by charitable philanthropy, our processes are transparent with a diversity of participation. Like you, we all have to keep the lights on. We take pride that industry, NGO’s, the left, the right, people who don’t agree with each other, all seek to come work with us here.”
The non-answer about the Bipartisan Policy Center’s funding belies a lobbying blitz throughout Washington, DC.
An hour and a half after the the Bipartisan Policy Center released its Alliance plan, a meeting was convened on Capitol Hill to promote the effort to congressional staffers. According to an invitation leaked to The Nation, Charlie Scheeler, a government affairs staffer, senior counsel with DLA Piper, a law and lobbying firm, hosted the event at 11:30 am in the Cannon House Office Building. DLA Piper is also the firm where former Senator Mitchell is a partner. Repeated requests for comment about DLA Piper’s involvement in the process, whether the firm is being paid by the retailers or their affiliates to promote the alternative safety plan, were not answered. A staffer with the firm directed our questions to the DLA Piper office in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Bill Chandler, vice president for global corporate affairs at Gap Inc., however, told The Nation over the phone in an interview Wednesday afternoon that Gap has a “business relationship” with DLA Piper. “We’re very pleased with the way the process unfolded and the role the two senators in this discussion and it was very robust and I think the retailers appreciate the time and commitment the senators made,” said Chandler. On how the Bipartisan Policy Center or Senator Mitchell could provide impartial guidance to the Alliance given the financial ties to the retailers, Chandler said, “When the senator gets involved in a project, he provides an independent perspective that is not linked to any business that DLA might have,” adding, “Senator Mitchell’s reputation is one of the most steller in the field and he provides independent facilitation and we appreciate the time and commitment that he provided.”
Questioned about the closed-door meeting in the Cannon House Office Building with another DLA representative, Charlie Scheeler, Chandler responded, “You know, I was happy to speak to the overall specifics. but what’s important today is the plan that’s been put forward that was independent, independently facilitated and I think was a robust plan. And I think Senators Mitchell’s and Snowe’s reputation is very strong in this regard, and you know we’re very proud that they participated in it. Sorry, I don’t have anything more to say to that.”
The rollout of the alternative Bangladesh retailer agreement yesterday was boosted by other retailer groups and their representatives.
Wednesday morning, a website touting the rival plan went live. According to DomainTools.com, it was registered by an official with the American Apparel & Footwear Association, a trade group led by executives from the retail industry, including Target. Disclosures show the AAFA has spent large sums this year on lobbying on labor issues in Bangladesh.
On Wednesday afternoon, the Heritage Foundation hosted an economic and policy event focused on Bangladesh along with experts and officials from Bangladesh and the State Department. Though Heritage’s Walter Lohman described the event’s timing on the same day as the rival safety agreement announcement as a “coincidence,” he welcomed the retailer’s approach in his opening comments.
One of the panelists, Shamarukh Mohiuddin, said she viewed the US retailer–led safety agreement as a “step in the right direction,” suggesting it was in the same range as the one proposed by mostly European retailers. Mohiuddin worked for several years at the same firm, Fontheim International, as her co-panelist Ed Gresser. Left unsaid at the Heritage event was that Gresser’s consulting firm, Fontheim International, helps retailers like the Gap and Walmart negotiate trade and labor deals throughout the globe.
Think Tank Releasing Rival Bangladesh Safety Accord Receives Funds From Walmart and Its Lobbyists
A Bangladeshi woman looks at a wall filled with portraits of missing persons near the site of a garments factory that collapsed in Savar near Dhaka, Bangladesh, Friday, May 3, 2013. (AP Photo/Ashraful Alam Tito)
Following a series of tragedies in Bangladesh garment plants that claimed the lives of more than 1,100 in Dhaka and 112 in Tazreen, Western retailers have come under pressure to improve working conditions in their factories. In May, more than seventy companies signed on to a legally binding plan, the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh. It has been largely welcomed by labor rights NGOs for ensuring international inspectors into facilities, greater contractor transparency and for a requirement that retailers fund necessary safety upgrades at garment factories.
But Walmart, Target, J.C. Penney, Gap, Sears and the largest federation of US-based retailers balked, claiming the recent accord would increase their liability. On Wednesday at 10 am, the dissenting retailers are poised to unveil a rival plan, one already panned by critics as a smokescreen designed to help them skirt responsibility for fixing their factory “deathtraps.”
To release their rival accord, called the Global Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety, the US retailers turned to George Mitchell (D-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), along with the Bipartisan Policy Center, a group affiliated with both former senators. The decision to release the plan through an independent, bipartisan think tank may have been made to boost the plan’s credibility. In a letter to inform European counterparts that they would not be meeting to discuss safety plans, Mitchell and Snowe presented their involvement in the rival agreement as neutral brokers. “Under the auspices of the Bipartisan Policy Center, we are independently facilitating a robust and principled dialogue among leading garment retailers and brands as they work to achieve consensus on a single, unified safety plan designed to improve worker conditions in Bangladesh garment factories,” the senators wrote in their June 25 message to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The Bipartisan Policy Center, however, has significant financial ties to the retailers they are assisting.
In its most recently published annual report, the Bipartisan Policy Center notes that the law firm Alston & Bird, one of Walmart’s many registered lobbying firms, is among the organization’s corporate donors. Earlier this year, former Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) registered as one of Walmart’s representatives through the firm. Alston & Bird also represents the National Retail Federation, a trade group that counts many of the nation’s leading retailers as members.
Others affiliated with the Bipartisan Policy Center work for the retailers involved in the rival accord. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s “Democracy Project” advisors include former Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), who is now a lobbyist for Walmart, as well as Don Fierce, founder of Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock, a firm that helps the Retail Industry Leaders Association influence Congress. The RILA, yet another trade group supporting the alternative labor agreement, is led by a board that includes the CEOs of J.C. Penney and Walmart.
In May, the Bipartisan Policy Center even received direct funding from Walmart to sponsor an immigration policy event.
Walmart’s financial links to the groups associated with the upcoming labor plan are a reminder of the corporation’s extensive political reach, which extends well beyond campaign contributions and other traditional forms of influence. As The Nation reported earlier this year, the company has ramped up efforts to co-opt civil rights groups and other advocacy organizations as they have pushed to expand their presence in urban centers. Walmart has also won highly publicized support from the White House (including a partnership with Michelle Obama and a role in President Barack Obama’s push to hire veterans), while claiming victory on major legislative battles, from defeating sweeping federal labor reforms to credit card swipe fee legislation to the recent law to compel online companies to collect sales tax. At times, Walmart’s aggressive public affairs approach has backfired. In June of last year, a lobbying firm working for Walmart in the Los Angeles area was caught sending a young staffer to pose as a reporter and gather information from labor activists at Walmart-affiliated warehouses.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
The latest series of scandals, from bribery in Mexico to the man-made disasters in Bangladesh, may test Walmart’s image and its pull within the Beltway.
Reports show that over the past year at least three suppliers to Walmart were using the factory in Tazreen. The company has so far dodged responsibility, claiming the suppliers were not “authorized” to produce Walmart products when the fire took place.
The Bipartisan Policy Center, run by a number of lawmakers turned lobbyists, has faced recent criticism for peddling a pro-polluter “energy blueprint” under the guise of neutral policy. My former colleague David Halperin notes that the group has endorsed efforts that boost offshore drilling, drilling on federal lands, horizontal drilling (fracking), and the Keystone XL, all without action on climate change. The Bipartisan Policy Center, Halperin argued, failed to be upfront about more than ten major fossil fuel corporations that provide it with funding, or the many Bipartisan Policy Center leaders working for oil and gas companies through law firm or lobbying gigs. Like the rival Bangladesh agreement, the “energy blueprint” was offered by two former senators, Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott, also through the auspices of the Bipartisan Policy Center. As Public Citizen’s Tyson Slocum blogged in September, both former senators lobby for oil companies: Lott for ExxonMobil and Shell Oil; Dorgan for Noble Energy.
Despite the conflict of interest, DC media breathlessly reported that the Bipartisan Policy Center’s “blueprint for energy legislation” could “gain traction” because “both [Lott and Dorgan] are held in high regard by their former colleagues, and the BPC is a serious player in the energy debate.”
Of the many questions tomorrow, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s independence in brokering the rival agreement might be one.
Lee Fang documents the money (and the beer) that fuels North Carolina’s right-wing agenda.
Lobbyists Lavish North Carolina's Far-Right Politicians With Beer, Expensive Parties
Protesters at the capitol in Raleigh, North Carolina. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)
Outside in the muggy afternoon sun, “Moral Monday” activists today are holding their tenth demonstration on the grassy Halifax Mall lawn behind the state legislative building in North Carolina. A broad coalition of activists have staged the demos, which often result in arrests for engaging in civil disobedience, to protest a tidal wave of right-wing legislation, including new restrictions on voting, corporate tax cuts funded in part by tax hikes on the poor, the decision to block the Medicaid expansion, a so-called “Ag-Gag” bill blocking reporting on industrial farming, an expansion in loosely regulated fracking, and beyond.
Indoors, at ritzy venues like the penthouse Cardinal Club of the Wells Fargo skyscraper overlooking the state capital, corporate lobbyists have thrown an elaborate set of parties for Governor Pat McCrory and state legislative leaders.
The success of big business-friendly legislation this session is largely the result of McCrory’s victory in November, replacing Democrat Bev Perdue, who had been a check on the Republican-held legislature. Now, Republican leaders face few barriers in enacting their agenda, which in many cases reflects the interests of large companies with business in the state.
A review of 2013 state lobbying disclosures by The Nation reveals that lobbyists have not only been generous with campaign contributions. They are also cultivating influence the old fashion way, through expensive meals and parties:
• The Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce, a trade group led by executives from Bank of America, Cisco and other firms, has spent $29,011 this year on catered events, which have included lawmakers, legislators and Governor McCrory. The governor attended the group’s reception at the Umstead Hotel & Spa. Lawmakers were treated to a party at the North Carolina Museum of History.
• The American Petroleum Institute, a trade association for oil and drilling companies, hosted a reception at the Cardinal Club with state legislators that cost $3,080. At the same venue, API also hosted a reception that cost $2,897 for three state senators, including Bob Rucho, who is leading the effort to fast-track fracking in the state.
• The North Carolina Association of Electric Cooperatives has spent $34,433 on food and beverage for members of the General Assembly and other elected officials. Utility company interests have been criticized for attempting to advance legislation that would have repealed the state renewable energy goals.
• The NC Agribusiness Council, which lobbies for the largest farming interests in the state, spent $7,457 on a pre-inauguration party at the Cardinal Club for Governor McCrory.
• The North Carolina Biosciences Organization, a trade group for biotech firms like Amgen and Monsanto, spent $13,931 on a party with state lawmakers and cabinet officials at the North Carolina Museum of History.
• The Association of Executives of North Carolina, a group financed by T-Mobile and business interest groups including the NC Pork Council, sponsored a $27,454 party for state lawmakers, lobbyists other officials.
• The North Carolina Retail Merchants Association, a group funded by Wal-Mart, Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kerr Drugs and other retailers, has spent over $7,755 to host two receptions at the North Carolina Museum of History for lawmakers.
• The N.C. Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association, along with other lobby groups, including the Resident Lenders of North Carolina, a trade group for payday lenders and other companies in the consumer finance industry, sponsored the “Rush the Growler” party for lawmakers, a $12,689 event with a wide array of different beers. In June, the legislature passed a bill removing the maximum interest rate payday lenders and other consumer finance companies can charge borrowers.
“Corporations in North Carolina continue to exercise all sorts of influence on our lawmakers,” says Chris Fitzsimon, founder of the NC Policy Watch, a progressive watchdog group in the state. North Carolina has seen a huge influx of so-called soft money in recent campaigns—unlimited contributions that are in some cases funneled through opaque advocacy organizations. But Fitzsimon says there are other avenues for special interests to dump money into the state, “particularly through parties and entertainment.”
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
For some state lawmakers, special interests could be doing more to please them. State Representative Robert Brawley (R-Iredell), a member of the leadership, sponsored a measure to repeal the remaining prohibitions and disclosure requirements on gifts to lawmakers. Brawley told local media that the rules prohibiting lobbyist gifts “are an impediment to meeting and exchanging ideas and information.”
The Nation’s Ari Berman on why North Carolina is the new Wisconsin.
Six Months After Leaving Office, Most US Senators Already Land Corporate Boards or Lobby Gigs
For the last class of US senators to leave office, through retirement or losing their seats in an election, the majority have already cashed by taking lucrative positions on corporate boards or at lobbying-related firms. Senate ethics rules prohibit ex-senators from lobbying their former colleagues or staff members for two years. But that hasn’t prevented many from joining companies where they can advise their business clients on how to win political, policy or regulatory campaigns.
Here’s a run-down of the recent swings through the revolving door:
• Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) joined law-lobbying firm Bracewell & Giuliani shortly after retiring, where she said she will “focus on advising clients on the regulatory process, legislative attitudes and the likelihood of government action.” Earlier this month, she joined the advisory board of corporate PR powerhouse Fleishman-Hillard where she will “provide direct counsel on a wide range of issues that are important to clients.” Fleishman-Hillard’s clients include the government of Singapore and NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. She is also on Bank of America’s Global Advisory Council.
• Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) joined the law-lobbying firm Covington & Burling shortly after retiring in January. Some of Covington’s largest lobbying clients include Qualcomm Inc., Chiquita Brands International and Microsoft.
• Senator Joe Liberman (I-CT) joined the law firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman help advise clients on public policy and regulatory issues.
• Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) joined the law-lobbying firm of Nixon-Peabody to work on “business and governmental affairs as they relate to the financial services industry as well as on commercial real estate matters.” He is now on the board of Kadant Inc., a pulp and paper company.
• Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) became the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a trade association that coordinates efforts among state insurance regulators. Earlier this year, he joined the public affairs firm Agenda as well.
Several have also joined corporate boards in recent months. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) joined the board of T. Rowe Price last week, where she is estimated to earn between $238,923 and $309,618. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) joined the board of Genworth Financial, a life insurance company.
In addition, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who retired shortly after the 2012 elections, has an advocacy job with the Heritage Foundation that pays over $1 million a year. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), who left the Senate after one term, is now a consultant.
For now, the exceptions to the list include Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Richard Lugar (R-IN), and Herb Kohl (D-WI), all of whom have gone into academia or less self-enriching forms of retirement.
As I’ve reported before, disclosed salary listings show lawmakers who go to take lobbying jobs can earn several millions dollars. The greatest danger here is that members of Congress make decisions while in office—like weakening regulations or preserving corporate tax loopholes—in anticipation that their official actions will earn them more money on K Street or a corporate board when they retire.
'Meet the Press' Pundit With Financial Ties to NSA Misleadingly Slams Snowden
On Meet the Press yesterday, shortly after host host David Gregory stunned many by suggesting that The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald should face prosecution, a roundtable of pundits discussed the unfolding Edward Snowden story. Mike Murphy, one of the Meet the Press pundits, mocked Snowden’s attempt to seek asylum, calling him a “so-called whistleblower,” and charging that “it’s never been easier in human history to be a whistleblower” through official means.
There are problems here with both the messenger and the message.
First, the message. In fact, the Obama administration has one of the worst records of any president’s in terms of prosecuting leaks and whistleblowers. Moreover, Snowden had virtually no legal protections as a member of an intelligence agency contractor (Booz Allen Hamilton). In These Times reported that “as part of last year’s Whistleblower’s Protection Enhancement Act, rights for whistleblowers were enhanced for many categories of federal employees, but intelligence employees were excluded from coverage under the act. Likewise, intelligence workers—both federal and contract employees—were excluded from whistle blower protections offered to military contract employees under the most recent National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).”
But Murphy himself has a stake in this debate that arguably ought to have been disclosed. Though Murphy was introduced only as a “Republican strategist,” he is also the founding partner of Navigators Global, a lobbying firm that represents one of the NSA’s largest contractors. Disclosures show that Navigators Global represents Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC) on issues before Congress. For at least a decade, CSC has won major contracts from the National Security Agency (NSA). Murphy’s firm has lobbied on behalf of CSC for bills that would expand the NSA’s reach, including the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act or CISPA, which passed the House of Representatives earlier this year. As the Center for Democracy and Technology noted, the “legislation is being billed as an expansion of a collaboration between the National Security Agency (NSA) and major ISPs dubbed the Defense Industrial Base Pilot.”
As Americans continue to debate the revelations raised by Snowden, few lawmakers have raised the potential for abuse when powerful spy technology is outsourced to private contractors. Rather than focusing on the issue of the sprawling surveillance state or its legions of private contractors, many in the media seem intent on only discussing the personality or motives of Edward Snowden. While Murphy’s misleading assertion about whistleblower protections was challenged briefly by NBC’s Chuck Todd, his claim obscures the facts of the story.
Though Meet the Press has a strong reputation for confronting politicians with tough questions, often the show has trouble with disclosure, particularly in terms of revealing the private sector ties of their guests. For instance, Harold Ford, a regular Meet the Press pundit and a frequent voice for corporate-friendly policies, has served in various roles in the finance industry, with Bank of America and now with Morgan Stanley. He has used his perch on the show to criticize the Occupy movement and, more recently, to warn the Obama campaign against attacking Mitt Romney’s private equity record. Yet transcripts show that Ford is almost always introduced not as a Wall Street executive but as a “former Congressman.” Similarly, Murphy is almost always introduced as a “Republican strategist” without mention of his lobbying firm or its clients.
Latest
-
October 2, 2013 - 12:51 PM ET
-
October 2, 2013 - 12:20 PM ET
-
October 2, 2013 - 11:58 AM ET
Blogs
